Armata soon to be in service.

[Alan8325]

In that close-up top view of the Armata turret you can really see the pins holding the panels on, indicating that they are probably just there to hide the smaller silhouette of actual turret.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

[sburke]

Lock and Load, they may take a bit of time to load, but love the highly detailed pics, thanks!

[slysniper]

Man, that thing is taller than I thought. I would hate to have to exit quickly out of the back hatch. Could get injured just doing that. 

[Battlefront.com]

If anything but anything gets through, it's going to take out the turret.  Either the optics or the gun, there's just no room between anything, and compared to the thickness of the frontal slope of western tanks, unless the new APS/ERA does a number on the new "heavy" sabots it's going to be a firepower kill.

Yup, which is why the APS had better do what it is designed to do or the Armata is toast against multiple NATO type threats, including dismounted infantry. A few thin ceramic plates bolted onto the roof isn't going to do squat. Which makes me wonder what those things are which are on the front part of the roof. Unless they are "morale armor" that makes the crew feel it's got a better chance than it does.

Also the reliance on automation means what might be a manual override, or even just bypassing broken stuff isn't going to be practical.  The Russians are not stupid, but it is a design assuming a lot of risk from KE projectiles.  Additionally the whole "Sheet metal allowing rounds to pass through!" thing appears to be ripe for hat consumption.  Unless the outer layer really deals with late model sabots (or earlier model sabots fired by higher velocity platforms), there's a lot thats very important and very breakable behind that shell.

You've said this a hundred times already, but it doesn't make it any less true

The same thing is plaguing taking small arms to the next technical level. The more a rifle moves away from mechanical parts that rely on pure physics, the greater the chance that there's going to be a situation in the field where the soldier is not going to have something he can work with. With traditional weapons you can improvise fixes for many things, but when a circuit board goes belly up or a battery pack unexpectedly drains, a rock or some motor oil isn't going to help.

 

Which opens the question in my mind if the turret is either unfinished, and the plates we saw in place are just to make it look like a turret, or if it's just the protective layer that isn't finished, as it's looking pretty skimpy right now.

Yup, that is exactly what my thought is. Unless Russia is aware there isn't anything it can do to protect the turret, so might as well save the cost and weight of pretending. If so, that's inline with my thinking that Russia should concentrate on vehicles that are capable of threatening its poorer neighbors than trying to compete with the Joneses.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Man, that thing is taller than I thought. I would hate to have to exit quickly out of the back hatch. Could get injured just doing that. 

Holy crow that is even taller than I thought it was! Even if that guy is a midget, that is a massive vehicle. Makes me think back to the first time I stood next to a 1970s German Lynx recon 8x8. 2.84m tall looks a lot bigger in person than it does on paper.

Steve

[MikeyD]

The 'turret' itself is probably not much wider than the gun breech. What you're seeing for width (without the shroud) appears to be mostly the side special armor. As for knocking out optics, isn't that the fate of every tank? Someone puts a round into an Abrams rooftop optics box and there's going to be a few days of repair and replacement to do too.

 

About coloring, depending on the lighting conditions the tanks appear to resemble the coloring of the CMBS light bright green for the Russians. Especially the last set of photos (post #1277). About a year ago word was Russia was going for three 'regional' color schemes, the bright green & black-green in the game, and a third khaki color for the far east.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The 'turret' itself is probably not much wider than the gun breech. What you're seeing for width (without the shroud) appears to be mostly the side special armor. As for knocking out optics, isn't that the fate of every tank?

Smaller turret means sensors and sights more densely packed, so all else being equal a hit will be more likely to break something. But there are a couple of mitigating factors. A smaller turret is a smaller target, and while Armata's armor is a huge unknown a smaller internal volume would allow thicker armor for the same weight.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

 As for knocking out optics, isn't that the fate of every tank? Someone puts a round into an Abrams rooftop optics box and there's going to be a few days of repair and replacement to do too.

 

You pretty much have to hit the doghouse.  The way stuff is packed on the Armata, simply hitting the turret will likely get several systems.

 

 

 

Armata's armor is a huge unknown a smaller internal volume would allow thicker armor for the same weight. 

 

If there's ever more to the turret.  Right now even if it's just chock full of gun and autoloader there's not much evident in armor.  It's not just slapping ceramic armor plates, you still need some pretty significant thickness unless Russian APS/ERA is just that good now.  

[Battlefront.com]

If there's ever more to the turret.  Right now even if it's just chock full of gun and autoloader there's not much evident in armor.  It's not just slapping ceramic armor plates, you still need some pretty significant thickness unless Russian APS/ERA is just that good now.

Yes, that occurred to me too very early on. Now, if the turret was as big as an Abrams, but had no crew in it... well then... that would be leading to an entirely different discussion

A good analogy is the difference between an M16 and a M4A1. Anybody expecting the M4A1 to perform the same as the M16 is nuts. Which is a better gun is more-or-less situationally dependent. But the more someone justifies the M4A1 as being "better" by claiming it to have M16 like benefits, but not M16 like drawbacks, needs a better line of argument.

I think the key to Armata's survivability on the battlefield comes down to how good the APS is. Because from what we can see of Armata today, it is probable that a run-of-the-mill Soviet era tank could turn it into an expensive 3 man APC with one hit.

Steve

[MikeyD]

The big unknown in the discussion is hit probability under normal combat conditions. Does hit probability at  typical combat ranges against a dug-in overhead gun turret versus a full manned turret drop by 10%? 30%? 50%? Then there's chance of a hit rendering the tank combat ineffective. Does it drop by 10%, 30%, 50%? If you're assuming a mere 10% advantage then Armata doesn't look like its worth the effort. If you're assuming a 50% advantage that could spell the difference between winning and losing a battle.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You pretty much have to hit the doghouse.  The way stuff is packed on the Armata, simply hitting the turret will likely get several systems.

True, although most of the gadgets mounted on the Armata's turret appear to be related to the APS. 

 

If there's ever more to the turret.  Right now even if it's just chock full of gun and autoloader there's not much evident in armor.  It's not just slapping ceramic armor plates, you still need some pretty significant thickness unless Russian APS/ERA is just that good now.

 

It would be intriguing if they really did blow their entire armor budget on the hull. Putting all 3 crew in the hull and then making it impregnable across the frontal arc might be a worthwhile trade off. While a mission kill is still a kill of sorts, in an extended conflict turrets can be replaced more easily than trained crews.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

My personal guess is that roof tiles are Reactive Armor. Smaller blocks look like it the most. Pictures from different angles suggest that the thickness is comparable. Also note that there's been an official statement that said T-14's systems have backups, and that there's even manual gun control. And that vehicle is still operable under power loss.

 

Being a Moscow kid :

 

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Gunner's seat right next to the driver? Not behind.

[Stagler]

Good old open source.

[akd]

Gunner's seat right next to the driver? Not behind.

 

 

Yeah, driver's seat likely has two positions, one up and forward for driving with head out of the hatch and another back and more reclined for driving with periscopes.  Would also presumably make it easier for both gunner and driver to use the hatch for exiting.

[c3k]

Top armor: the vertical smoke launchers would, I assume, create an opaque shield over the top of the tank. That should negate a lot of the top-attack weapons, like Javelin, which use optical tracking. As long as the tank can create the cloud fast enough (and shift position?), it should help. A cheap way of providing protection. (Cheaper than trying to armor the entire vehicle.)

[akd]

My personal guess is that roof tiles are Reactive Armor. Smaller blocks look like it the most. Pictures from different angles suggest that the thickness is comparable.

 

 

 

Maybe, but the reactive elements would have to be of mixed sizes, which would be a bit odd.  Some sort of modular NERA armor is also a possibility.

 

[Neurasthenio]

A fresh analysis from Janes http://www.janes.com/article/51469/russia-s-armour-revolution

[akd]

Two large sensors, believed to be electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR)-based laser warning receivers, are angularly mounted on the front of the turret providing 180° coverage, while four smaller sensors (covered but believed to be radars) are mounted around the turret providing 360° coverage.

 

I wonder how they came to this conclusion?  It does not make sense.

Edited May 15, 2015 by akd

[Battlefront.com]

My personal guess is that roof tiles are Reactive Armor. Smaller blocks look like it the most. Pictures from different angles suggest that the thickness is comparable. Also note that there's been an official statement that said T-14's systems have backups, and that there's even manual gun control. And that vehicle is still operable under power loss.

I'm sure that is true. The thing is, it's still more prone to failure even with backups. It's a law of engineering; the more complex the system is, the more things that can go wrong and the more difficult it is to fix. Not that this means the Armata's is less capable of functioning after a hit than an Abrams, it is just less likely to. The problem is none of us knows is how to quantify "less likely".

Speaking as one of the guys that is responsible for simulating things like Armata, it's extremely important to have some idea how to quantify factors like this. It could be as low as 1% for all I know, in which case it's statistically irrelevant. From a sim standpoint we'd not even bother with it. But if it starts getting up into the 5% or greater range, that's something we need to model.

 

Maybe, but the reactive elements would have to be of mixed sizes, which would be a bit odd.  Some sort of modular NERA armor is also a possibility.

That's the thing that is puzzling me. A couple of the shots show the block in profile and it appears to be quite thin. Too thin to do much of anything against a top attack weapon.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I wonder how they came to this conclusion?  It does not make sense.

 

I think they meant sensor mount on each side. Two perpendicularly placed sensors on one mount, covering 180 each. That's what I said first time I saw it. Or there's a typo. Or they meant things that I meant as "smaller APS radars". They cover only frontal 180.

 

Speaking as one of the guys that is responsible for simulating things like Armata, it's extremely important to have some idea how to quantify factors like this. It could be as low as 1% for all I know, in which case it's statistically irrelevant. From a sim standpoint we'd not even bother with it. But if it starts getting up into the 5% or greater range, that's something we need to model.

 

Oh yeah, I remember some discussions with certain persons using phrase "it's worse, because it's Russian" as an argument. Don't even get me started.

 

That's the thing that is puzzling me. A couple of the shots show the block in profile and it appears to be quite thin. Too thin to do much of anything against a top attack weapon.

 

Previous page, photo with the driver. Left and right to his head, you can clearly see where roof ends and where these modules start, and what thickness they are. Same on other pictures. They don't look too thin at all.

 

The guy on otvaga2004 forums says he talked to Boomerang's driver in person and he said that it can carry 8 passengers, can do 100 kph, has just over 500 hp engine, and weights... 25 tons. This is consistent with some stuff I read previously about their engines, but I find it very doubtful that it is actually 25 ton vehicle. Kurganets, with those floaty things on the side, yes (hence "-25"), but Boomerang? Hmm..

 

Added: Oh, it actually might be true. Rosomak is 22t. Boxer is 25, but not sure if it's actually amphibious.

Edited May 15, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

True, although most of the gadgets mounted on the Armata's turret appear to be related to the APS. 

 

Yeah, but there's not much on the turret to stop a sabot type round.  Like there's accounts of sabots zipping through turrets in one end and out the other (usually resulting in a catastrophic loss anyway) on lesser armored tanks.  Unless the armor on the turret is sufficient to significantly slow/stop a sabot, it's likely going to zip through the largely external APS equipment, and there's a decent chance of a gun/autoloader hit.

 

Which needless to say is bad.  Again Russian engineers are not dumb, but it seems very reliant on APS/ERA to prevent a firepower kill.  Neither of these really quite answer a "heavy" type sabot like the M829E4.

 

Which then opens the question of if the Armata really is designed to push around neighboring T-72 operators and not much else.  An APS and ERA array dependent protective suite works quite well against ATGMs or HEAT type projectiles, and fairly modest protection holds up against most of the 125 MM type penetrators (or at least the Ukraine/Georgian stocks of same).  On the other hand if the hull is designed to accept larger turrets in the future it might hold that in 10 years we're looking at a pool of "big" turrets with larger guns or much more significant armor.

 

Dunno.  Still hold more doubts than not on the feasibility of large scale procurement in the short term with even the basic models.  

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yeah, but there's not much on the turret to stop a sabot type round.  

 

The outer shell, yes. But the armor on the turret itself is unknown.

[John Kettler]

Neurasthenio,

 

Thanks for the article. If that's the mere mortal version, goodness knows what grog goodness awaits for the elect, the subscribers!

 

Douglas Ruddd,

 

Circa mid 80s, I got to read a SECRET (maybe higher in terms of control markings)level pub called Journal of Defense Research, a quarterly put out featuring the deep thoughts, prognostications and defense policy recommendations of the scientific brain trust known as the JASONS. As you can see from this, these people cover all sorts of important defense matters. It just so happens that one of the issues had a piece talking about where the Abrams was going in the future. Two directions were shown and discussed: upgunned, turretless Abrams much like that Tank Technology Testbed pic you posted, as well as, wait for it, a Super Heavy IFV, in recognition of the extreme vulnerability of anything but Abrams level protection for US mech infantry on the modern battlefield. 

 

All,

 

Does anyone know what that little hex shaped faceted thing is on the T-14s turret roof ? My thought was that it was a protective cover under which might be a radar which covered the high angle zone in which top attack weapons operate. I know I saw something from a Russian radar manufacturer for a system to do exactly that.  Unfortunately, I can't presently recall the manufacturer or the radar's name. Am pretty sure I blundered across the radar as a bonus find on the manufacturer's site.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited May 16, 2015 by John Kettler